# FDA warnings on cigarettes are just the beginning



## PadillaGuy (Feb 4, 2010)

Now that the FDA has been granted god-like powers to regulate cigarettes and to require graphic warning labels which will occupy a significant portion of the pack, I thought it might be fun to jump into my old time machine and look at what's in store for us next...

Brought these images back... thought you all might enjoy seeing the future...

































And they won't stop there....

This is why we need everyone to join CRA and put a stop to this fascist crap!

CRA - Cigar Rights of America

Do it today!

PG


----------



## Rackir (Jul 17, 2011)

I sort of thought the new warnings were like cigerette trading cards, gotta get em all!


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for sharing...this crap sucks rocks!!! :yell:

Yes...join the CRA!!! :mad2:


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

I think written warnings are effective enough to be honest.


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Great Pics Padilla! Yep, alcohol is definitely next, despite the flurry about fast food and salt etc. The PETA folks and the healthists don't have the raw power of the Prohibitionists out there. I actually reserved the final Appendix of "Brains" for the subject and titled it: "Beyond Tobacco..." with the primary focus being on alcohol. Consumer Freedom's website has a great essay on it titled "SPECIAL REPORT: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Neo-Prohibitionist Agenda" but it's been erased from the regular internet and is only available at the moment through the Wayback Machine. 

I posted a somewhat satirical suggestion along the same lines a while back on another board during a discussion of cigarette advertising: 

"Perhaps the same rules should be applied to alcohol advertising. 90% of all drinkers started drinking as underage children, and most sports events take heavy advantage of alcohol advertising despite having a significant percentage of under-21 viewers. The lost advertising revenue could be made up through higher ticket prices and the fans wouldn't really object once they understood it was "for the children." If the finances got tight and the Superbowl and World Series had to go to a "once every two years" schedule I think again that most folks would understand - even if it took a few years of heavy anti-alcohol commercials to properly shape their thoughts. Finally, beer bottles could be allowed only generic black and white labels with the brand names replaced by 3 digit alpha numeric codes to counter the years of advertising to children with big horses and dancing bottles and cute dogs, or deceptive "light" beer advertising where drinkers simply drink faster to get their addictive drug. Rule that every bottle and can has to have 75% of its surface area covered with pics of dismembered children after car accidents, the faces of battered wives, pus-filled cirrhotic livers, and other fun and informational graphics and we'll be quite well on our way to our brave new world...."

Of course if I'm wrong about PETA's potential power, just think of the fun it'll be to go supermarket shopping in the meat and fast food (think: swimsuit shots) aisles. Sheeesh!


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

Cantiloper said:


> Great Pics Padilla! Yep, alcohol is definitely next, despite the flurry about fast food and salt etc. The PETA folks and the healthists don't have the raw power of the Prohibitionists out there. I actually reserved the final Appendix of "Brains" for the subject and titled it: "Beyond Tobacco..." with the primary focus being on alcohol. Consumer Freedom's website has a great essay on it titled "SPECIAL REPORT: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Neo-Prohibitionist Agenda" but it's been erased from the regular internet and is only available at the moment through the Wayback Machine.
> 
> I posted a somewhat satirical suggestion along the same lines a while back on another board during a discussion of cigarette advertising:
> 
> ...


you realize most revenue for sporting events comes from tv deals, and therefore ticket prices for a preseason NFL game would be $55,000 each in order to make up for it.

Advertisement/tv deals are worth BILLIONS of dollars to just the NFL alone, and i'd say 40% of those commercials are friggin' beer ads.

are we gonna ban shaving commercials because some kids gonna go try to shave and accidently cut himself?

also.. i wouldn't exactly call warning labels "fascism" but i get and agree with your point XD

(this was directed in all directions without quotes cause im lazy atm. durpty slurpty!)

Personally, how awesome would it be to see cigars advertised on tv? I'd enjoy it a hell of a lot more than seeing miller lite put a bunch of ugly chicks running around telling people to collect "taste points"

if my beer needs "taste points" or to be "as cold as the rockies" for me to drink it, it's probably shitty beer.

I'll stick to my (aptly named for the rant LOL) Arrogant Bastard and dead guy ales.

I'd rather see "HEY KIDS A.J. Released a new blend! Tell your dad!" then "Hey kids you're not manly if you don't shave with Gillette and drink miller lite" or "Hey if you feel sad take ___ it wont make you want to kill everyone and then die of a blood clot when we recall it in 6 months we swear!"

Trying to do it "for the kids" and "tv ads" will never make sense, because 99% of them arent "kid friendly" to begin with.
[/rant]


----------



## Rackir (Jul 17, 2011)

Cantiloper said:


> "Perhaps the same rules should be applied to alcohol advertising. 90% of all drinkers started drinking as underage children, and most sports events take heavy advantage of alcohol advertising despite having a significant percentage of under-21 viewers. The lost advertising revenue could be made up through higher ticket prices and the fans wouldn't really object once they understood it was "for the children." If the finances got tight and the Superbowl and World Series had to go to a "once every two years" schedule I think again that most folks would understand - even if it took a few years of heavy anti-alcohol commercials to properly shape their thoughts. Finally, beer bottles could be allowed only generic black and white labels with the brand names replaced by 3 digit alpha numeric codes to counter the years of advertising to children with big horses and dancing bottles and cute dogs, or deceptive "light" beer advertising where drinkers simply drink faster to get their addictive drug. Rule that every bottle and can has to have 75% of its surface area covered with pics of dismembered children after car accidents, the faces of battered wives, pus-filled cirrhotic livers, and other fun and informational graphics and we'll be quite well on our way to our brave new world...."


:bowdown:
I like you. This is seriously quality entertainment.


----------



## Enrique1780 (Jan 25, 2010)

Why can't people just take some responsibility for their own actions? This is all getting out of hand.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Enrique1780 said:


> Why can't people just take some responsibility for their own actions? This is all getting out of hand.


:noidea: Why? Why, you ask...because that would make too much sense!!! :drum:


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

I think there should be warning labels letting us know to watch out for the fda. They want to do stuff like this but they wont make mcdonalds tell us whats in the "meat". The let companys put all kinds of poison in our foods. If there was any justice, anyone crooked enough to work for the fda should be executed.

And dont even get me started on peta. Nothing but terrorists and scum.


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Zogg, you wrote, "you realize most revenue for sporting events comes from tv deals, and therefore ticket prices for a preseason NFL game would be $55,000 each in order to make up for it."

Yep, and I fully agree with you Zogg. That sort of concern didn't stop them back in 1971 with cigarette ads though, and it won't stop them with alcohol ads if the neo-prohibitionists get enough power. Pump a few hundred million into "Alcohol Control" every year for a decade or so and watch the popular opinion tide turn.

Rackir, heh.... you should have seen the reactions I got back in the mid 90s when I tried to warn folks with a satirical organization called AATTAACK (Americans Against The Tobacco, Alcohol, And Car Killers).

The response was surprising, and a bit depressing. 1/3 recognized it as satire, 1/3 blasted me to kingdom come, and 1/3 wanted to JOIN the "organization" !! Sheeeesh! LOL! My guess is that the last third was an overrepresentation: I probably just tapped into a few nut cases who'd never had anyone agree with them before!!

I tried it again right around 2000 with an AOL Home Page titled S.A.F.E. 4 Our Kidz! (Substance Abuse Free Environments). I baited the hook by sprinkling a couple of the obligatory pics of cute little innocent tykes around the text and by starting off with a couple of antismoking paragraphs. I then moved into alcohol ads and alcohol service in restaurants ("where an innocent child might wander from a table and pick up someone's rum and coke -- young lips won't know the difference and a lifetime of addiction will be started.") and finally capped it off with a call to examine the dangers of caffeine and chocolate.

Again I actually got a few folks wanting to join my "group." 

::sigh::

That's when I settled down and started researching for "Brains." It was obvious that simple web-posting wasn't going to be enough to wake people up to what was happening. Today at least we have a FEW positives: the win in NV, the fights in the UK, Michigan and Ohio, widespread flouting of the ban reported from Illinois, and a total reversal of the ban for small pubs in the Netherlands! Anyone here who wants to keep up with at least a minimum of what's going on in the resistance should sign up for the SmokersClub free weekly newsletter. The editor, Samantha Philippe, does a great job with it and you'll never get anything other than the once a week newsletter mailing in your email box.

We've got to keep on fighting... the alernative ain't purty.


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

being from the exercise community - ill let you know it's just as likely (and has more political push lately, actually) that you'll see "healthists" get their way. Fat taxes *will* be pushed for in the near future, and you will probably see insurance skyrocket for unhealthy individuals. I recognized yours as possible satire, but you never know XD

personally, i have a view most wouldnt agree with when it comes to regulating anything. If it were up to me i'd allow all "unhealthy" things to be legal, and leave it up to individuals whether they want to do it or not. (this includes skydiving, heroin, marijuana, eating fatty foods, smoking, etc. I mean everything) but thats not what this convo is about, and i must say if people don't understand that smoking and inhaling cigarette smoke or drinking is unhealthy for you at this point in society, they probably wont be contributing much to society in the near future anyway.

drinking can cause cancer, especially hard alcoholic drinks when you drink them a lot.

I have a friend who binge drank like crazy when she got to college and developed gallbladder cancer and had to get it removed - in only about 3 years. (though she also drank a lot in highschool)


its just highest bidder. if booze isnt allowed to be advertised anymore, you'll get a lot more car and food ads, then food is banned? more tool and car and whatever else adds.


----------



## xobrian (Mar 29, 2011)

Cantiloper said:


> "Perhaps the same rules should be applied to alcohol advertising. 90% of all drinkers started drinking as underage children, and most sports events take heavy advantage of alcohol advertising despite having a significant percentage of under-21 viewers. The lost advertising revenue could be made up through higher ticket prices and the fans wouldn't really object once they understood it was "for the children." If the finances got tight and the Superbowl and World Series had to go to a "once every two years" schedule I think again that most folks would understand - even if it took a few years of heavy anti-alcohol commercials to properly shape their thoughts.


The average sports fan is not going to be ok with higher ticket prices just so we don't have beer signs & commercials... We already pay ridiculously high prices for tickets, food, parking. If you remove the advertising money from alcohol then many of us will no longer be able to afford bringing our kids to a game! I have no issue with the commercials, it's not like they are being played on Cartoon Network, this is ESPN, Fox, etc. It is up to the parents to teach their kids to be responsible with alcohol and that burden should not fall on the professional sports leagues & television networks.

And change the Super Bowl or World Series to every two years??? That is just insane, it is the entire reason why a season is played is to have a champion, if you are not going to crown a champion then you might as well not have a season...


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

bbergeson said:


> The average sports fan is not going to be ok with higher ticket prices just so we don't have beer signs & commercials... We already pay ridiculously high prices for tickets, food, parking. If you remove the advertising money from alcohol then many of us will no longer be able to afford bringing our kids to a game! I have no issue with the commercials, it's not like they are being played on Cartoon Network, this is ESPN, Fox, etc. It is up to the parents to teach their kids to be responsible with alcohol and that burden should not fall on the professional sports leagues & television networks.
> 
> And change the Super Bowl or World Series to every two years??? That is just insane, it is the entire reason why a season is played is to have a champion, if you are not going to crown a champion then you might as well not have a season...


You said it yourself. Sports fans already pay too much. You really think they would stop? Heck, if sports fans told the nfl to f off and just went to some high schools games instead, it wouldnt take long for ticket prices to drop. But this is from someone who hasnt watched a super bowl since 98, and less than a dozen games on free tv since. I


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

BBergson, I agree with you entirely: I think you may have missed the thrust of my post. :> If you google "V.Gen5H" and click on "The Health Arguments" you'll quickly pick up my general feelings about such things in "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans."

But the thing to be aware of is that we've quite complacently let the camel's nose into the tent. Unless we do something pretty firm to get it back where it belongs there's no telling what part will come in next. A strong anti-alcohol movement could very easily be in the offing, and if you think something like worries abut SuperBowl ticket prices could stop it I think you're very sadly mistaken.

Five years ago I met with one of the directors of the Casino Association in New Jersey and warned them that if they didn't support the bars in fighting the NJ ban that the casinos would be the next in line. He basically laughed at the idea and told me I simply had no understanding of just how important the casinos were to NJ and how they would NEVER be touched by a smoking ban. Two years later they got hit with a ban on everything except 25% or so of their gaming floors, and two years after that they just barely and temporarily escaped a full ban by the skin of their teeth while Antismokers howled at the Atlantic City City Council that "You're handing us a DEATH SENTENCE!" 

Slap the noses while you still can.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

> Unless we do something pretty firm to get it back where it belongs there's no telling what part will come in next.


Indeed! It is illegal to smoke in the workplace here, under industrial law but this is purely because of insurance. My business partner & I are the only ones in our building & guess what? We both smoke cigars or pipes when we feel like it, screw the laws! I dare anyone to enter my premises & declare I should not be smoking, one tried it & was asked to exit the building while we finalized his invoice and was not really happy about standing in the rain. My premises, my rules or you are free to leave.:spank:


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Tashaz said:


> Indeed! It is illegal to smoke in the workplace here, under industrial law but this is purely because of insurance. My business partner & I are the only ones in our building & guess what? We both smoke cigars or pipes when we feel like it, screw the laws! I dare anyone to enter my premises & declare I should not be smoking, one tried it & was asked to exit the building while we finalized his invoice and was not really happy about standing in the rain. My premises, my rules or you are free to leave.:spank:


Love it! That's how we should all "roll"...and stop being so concerned about what everyone else thinks...


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Tashaz, what do you mean by illegal under "industrial law" ?


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Cantiloper said:


> Tashaz, what do you mean by illegal under "industrial law" ?


Here are some passages from a state government publication.



> the Occupational Safety and Health
> Regulations 1996 prohibit employers, employees and self-employed persons smoking in enclosed
> workplaces. The legislative requirements are further examined in Section 3 of this document





> Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 requires an employer, so far as
> practicable, to provide and maintain a working environment in which the employees are not
> exposed to hazards. Under regulation 3.44B of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
> 1996 employers, employees and self-employed persons are prohibited from smoking in enclosed
> workplaces.





> To understand the meaning of enclosed workplace, it is important to firstly understand the meaning
> of a 'workplace'. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 a 'workplace' means:
> a place, whether or not in an aircraft, ship, vehicle, building, or other structure, where employees or
> self-employed people work or are likely to be in the course of their work.
> ...


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

Tashaz is in australia, everything it too unhealthy to be legal there.

There's a reason that athletes from australia move out of the country - you cant get ahold of basic, legal, allowed supplements. >.>


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Zogg said:


> Tashaz is in australia, everything it too unhealthy to be legal there.
> 
> There's a reason that athletes from australia move out of the country - you cant get ahold of basic, legal, allowed supplements. >.>


LMAO. That is why it is even better when Aussies win, it's all natural. Heheheeeheee oke:

Not everything unhealthy is illegal, we have legal McDonalds & BurgerKing stores everywhere but I think maybe they are just fronts for money laundering. ound:


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

Tashaz said:


> LMAO. That is why it is even better when Aussies win, it's all natural. Heheheeeheee oke:
> 
> Not everything unhealthy is illegal, we have legal McDonalds & BurgerKing stores everywhere but I think maybe they are just fronts for money laundering. ound:


BAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

that's one of the funniest things ive read in a long time.

oh god. I can't breathe.. i need to tell my pharmacology professor about this..


----------

